A CALIFORNIAN film production company has failed to get an Irish High Court order for possession of the Clare home of a film-maker and his screenwriter wife used as security for a $535,000 (€393,000) loan to partly fund a film entitled Botched.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy yesterday struck out proceedings by After Dark Entertainment of Los Angeles (ADE) against Terence and Mary Susan Ryan after finding the loan contract stipulated any dispute over it should first be dealt with by a Californian arbitrator.
New proceedings may yet be initiated in Ireland after the arbitration concludes.
The Ryans, who are both involved in film production, faced the possession proceedings by ADE, Bronson Avenue, Los Angeles, over “Derg House” in Mountshannon, Clare.
ADE claimed it had lent them $535,000 in 2007, with the house as security, to help Mr Ryan with cash flow difficulties including in relation to the production of the film Botched.
The loan was to be repaid by December 2008 with a number of repayments to be made in between.
It was claimed that while one payment, for $75,000, was made in May 2008, another for $60,000 due in July 2008 was not made.
When the loan was not repaid, ADE brought the proceedings in the High Court by way of a special summons seeking possession of the house.
Despite numerous demands to repay the money due under the agreement, ADE claimed the couple had failed to repay and the amount due was $651,140.
In their defence, the Ryans argued they were entitled to set off against the loan a refund in relation to the sale of the UK rights for the film. ADE disputed that argument and said the loan was a “standalone transaction.”
Last month, Rossa Fanning, for the Ryans, successfully argued a clause in the loan contract meant any dispute over it must first be dealt with by a Californian arbitrator. The judge agreed and adjourned the case to allow ADE’s lawyers take instructions.
John Breslin, for ADE, yesterday asked the judge not to strike out the Irish proceedings but to adjourn them until the Californian arbitration gets under way. He argued the Ryans had “sat on their hands for a considerable period” and had only argued the arbitration issue at the 11th hour.
Mr Breslin also asked the court not to award costs against his client because, he said, the Ryans themselves had taken no steps to refer the matter to the arbitrator.
Mr Justice Murphy ruled the High Court special summons should be struck out but said he would make no order on costs as the Ryans’ defence in relation to the arbitrator came “late in the day” and because there was a dispute over the set-off claimed by them.
